Bennett: Virginia would decline White House invite
- Thread starter Halldan1
- Start date
It is a powerful form of protest. Each time someone declines an invitation to meet with the President, it is national news.
Isn't it great we can disrespect the Office of the President? We are lucky to have such freedom to do so, and while I personally would not decline an invite, I support anyone who would choose to decline.
In your opinion...
In mine, it is a valid form of protest for someone so unfit for the office.
Freedom is a great thing...and we are lucky you can disrespect something here without penalty. That doesn’t make it right IMO.
When the national anthem is played, you pause a conversation with someone out of respect; When you go to the WTC memorial you don’t blast your music out of respect; So I don’t think it’s “great” that we can protest the office of the president. It IS great that the office and symbols represent that freedom which is “great”.
The office and the man are not the same thing.
My respect for the office is due to the weight and responsibilities of the office. This isn't 2017 and we are still in the "give him a chance" mindset. We gave him a chance and he has proven he isn't worthy of the office that we respect.
Your opinion....64 million voters disagreed....I respect their freedom to vote...it's a great country.
Of course... as would also apply to your 64 million, no?
It's a pretty silly discussion. Clearly you would not accept an invite if it were literally Hitler in office, right? And you would if it were Jesus?
So there is a point in the line between Hitler and Jesus where we would not accept an invitation. Mine is just a little further away from Hitler's than yours.
If I was a citizen of Germany while Hitler was in power, I think it would have been best to accept that invitation
.As to the rest of the debate, fair to say we differ on this and I'll certainly respect your POV. I was never a "silent protest" type but would rather prefer to engage, be direct and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe we are a product of our experiences. Someone who I would characterize as a career mentor (early in my working life) and had worked for in a couple of different companies....I joke with him now that of the ten greatest knock-down drag-out arguments/fights I had in my career; five were with him. And as stubborn as he was (grew up in Dorcester, MA), I was actually able to convince him to give in to my ideas a few times.
Stevie, I'm sorry but Merge is now the new genius. He's going to be a goddamn general.
All kidding aside but to post those as two extremes and then point out that Trump is somewhere in the middle is not exactly an intellectual breakthrough.
The invitation is from the President and it is to visit the White House and receive recognition on behalf of the country. It is not an invitation to visit Trump, or Obama, Nixon or Bush or whoever. It is not about them. It is about recognizing national champions and done at a place that represents our country. The White House is the people's house. Not accepting that invitation is disrespectful to the people.
Turning that into a political football is sad.
Last edited:
From your strict constitutionalist viewpoint, which presidents do you believe did a good job?
Gosh, nobody in recent memory. The president is suppose to faithfully execute the laws, not make laws or determine which laws they are going to enforce. Yes that is the first thing we ask presidential candidates.
What is "recent memory?" I'm genuinely curious to find out which presidents you thought were good. Go as far back as you need to.
Right, that was my point. I think it is dishonest to say there is no point where you wouldn't turn down an invite and I used an extreme example to show that.
It's not like they are receiving an award or anything though. It is a visit to the white house and really nothing more than PR. I would view the president offering an athlete the medal of freedom or something differently.
No it's not. Just like Matt Birk turning down an offer from Obama (which was not mentioned here of course) it is not disrespectful to the people.
That is your OPINION.
You can't be serious about giving him a chance. He was excoriated by the MSM from day zero.
As far as unworthy, you focus on tweets and spin from the media.
you can't fight his record and accomplishment and so now the new mantra will be "unfit"
For me, "unfit" went out the window after Billy Boy moistens his cigars in the oval office, not to mention the prostitutes smuggled into JFK's White House by the Secret Service.
I see progress despite a hostile House and Media and opposition party
Tax reform and simplification
NAFTA gone
TPP Gone
Paris Climate Agreement gone.
Trade Talks with China
More stable Korean Peninsula
NATO countries paying their way.
End of coddling Venezuela
Stock Market Booming
Lowest unemployment in 50 years.
Crime rate is dropping (per FBI UCR)
450,000 jobs created (perhaps more)
Growth at 3%
ACA Mandate repealed
and a whole bunch more.
Still much work to do.
Replace/Refine ACA
Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Border Security
and more
And my point is that the example was intellectually void. Absurd also comes to mind.
It provides a useless statement of the obvious.
Yes. As I stated many times in this thread.
He literally said this 2 days ago "The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”
That is a disgusting lie and in my opinion, WAY beneath the office.
That's not a new mantra. He has been providing that narrative himself for years.
I agree Clinton became unfit, not because of an affair (who cares) but because he perjured himself.
I feel like you're not following. That was my point. It should be obvious there is a line where you wouldn't accept an invite.
That's not spin.
Infidelity while a poor measure of character for sure.. is a matter between the couple.
Lying under oath is a huge problem for me.
He is blatantly lying to the American public about something that is not happening.
Your opinion, no more than that.
Spare me the millennial "I mean" and "literally" and"like" response.
Oh and I forgot "totally".
Last edited:
It is a fact, and I'm not a millennial... not that there would be anything wrong with that.
No. Doctors are not wrapping up children and then discussing abortion options with the parents.
As I have discussed here many times, I am personally against abortion but what the president described is totally, literally, actually, whatever word you want - not happening.
Perhaps he was referencing this:
"If it seems unlikely that the baby will survive, the family may choose to provide just comfort care — wrapping and cuddling the baby — and allow the child to die naturally without extreme attempts at resuscitation."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/us/politics/trump-abortion-fact-check.html
I would describe that the way Trump did but did. I would consider it in accurate.
With regard to the above situation the words "If it seems" are troubling.
Quoting you, "I feel like you're not following."
I said the words "If it seems" are troubling. For you to twist that to imply what you did is quite frankly outright nasty.
The issue I have with "If it seems" ( I should have cited "if it seems unlikely") is that it implies that it may be possible for the child to live. If that is the case, then to not take every reasonable measure to let the child live is troubling.
Perhaps they chose the wrong words and were being polite. I would have preferred to have read, "when it has been medically determined that the child has no chance to survive."
Last edited:
You're not following the context. Trump was discussing the law republicans were trying to change which democrats were objecting to.
By that law, a doctor who let a parent hold their dying child would be prosecuted.
That is why I said what I said. I am not twisting anything. That is what the law would do.
That is a legal issue... and they are not going to codify "no chance" into law.
What Trump said is not happening. It was a lie. You don't need to make excuses.
I don't know what team you are refereeing to and I do not war a jersey for whatever you may be implying. I could however envision that you are wearing an entire uniform for your cause.
I just pointed out a concrete, verified example of something that is more than remotely connected to his remarks. You ignore it. Better yet, you twist it.
The real issue is the difficult subject of abortion, women's health, choice, etc, you choose to focus on proving 'that Trump lied". When shown that his comments may simply be inaccurate but not necessarily a willful lie, you still choose the focus on proving your lie theory. The NYT didn't call it lie. Maybe they should have consulted you before publishing.
How about discussing the difficult topic of abortion?
I have seen figures in the 650,000 range for annual abortions. Its not a one size fits all but some of those 650,000 are pretty disguising and troubling situations that should not be described as "choice".
Not ignoring or twisting. I am talking about the bills which democrats objected to which Trump was talking about.
That is the context of what Trump said. Doctors who do not take every measure possible and instead let a parent decide to hold their dying child goes to jail.
Yes, because we were discussing Trump being unworthy of the office and I used him lying to a crowd of people as an example.
I have many times here. A quick search shows I have 57 posts talking about abortion going back to 2010
Agreed. but non of which are viable babies being born and then the parent and doctor deciding to execute it.
There has been some interesting back and forth but I'll be honest, I'm not following well. Would someone be able to recap?
I believe the quote from the President is as follows -
“The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”
1. Is the wording of the quote accurate?
2. What is the President referring to?
I believe the quote from the President is as follows -
“The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”
1. Is the wording of the quote accurate?
2. What is the President referring to?
Not remotely.
This conversation drifted a bit between a couple different laws, but specifically the president was referring to a Wisconsin bill. AB179
The bill allows prosecution (penalty of life in prison) of an abortion provider who performs an abortion and doesn't attempt to save the life of the baby if it is removed from the womb and is alive. It's an attempt to close all abortion facilities because they lack the technology to keep a baby alive in that remote scenario.
Unfit for the office? That's the biggest crock ever. People don't like his rhetoric....big deal. The question is does he get the job done. The goal should not be to be liked, but to do the job. Based on our economy, I would say he's doing well there. Did we think at one point N. Korea was a serious threat to bomb us by now? They haven't. Is our military stronger? Yes. People act like that he's creating racial divide in this country. Sadly a lot of events like in Ferguson and Baltimore occurred well before he took office. Has he made the situation better? I don't think so. Has he made it worse? I can't say that he has because we aren't seeing riots like we did in Charlotte and other areas we saw before he took office. So what makes him unfit?
1. I wanted to make sure the President spoke those exact words. As you know, I am a big fan of the MSM, but I do not blindly accept everything I read as 100% accurate. I apologize for not doing my own fact checking.
2. I am not sure about AB179 or the details. As a practical matter, the doctor who botches an abortion has a duty to keep the baby alive. What criteria does the bill require (i.e., does the doctor need a full neonatal unit on site) in order to prevent prosecution?
3. Separately, a botched abortion is a problem, but that is not an execution. The President is referring to something specific. Do we know what it is?
There is a lot, but reading just the comments from those who he (and many on this board) trusted as his top advisers, Mattis, Mcmaster, Tillerson etc...
Mattis for example said "We prevented a lot of bad things from happening." by not following orders from Trump.
Do you realize how crazy that is?
The people around Trump are not serving the president, but serving their country by preventing the president from doing anything bad.
Similar threads
